Doctrines of Severability (Post constitutional laws ) Art 13 (2)
Art 13 provides that Act is void which is inconsistent with the Part III of the constitution. Art 13 is having a flexible nature; it does not make the whole Act inoperative. It makes inoperative only such provisions of it as are inconsistent with or violative of fundamental right. Sometimes valid and invalid portion of the Act are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another. In such cases, the invalidity of the portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety, the reason is that the valid part cannot survive independently. In determining whether the valid parts of a statue are severable from the invalid parts. In intention of the Legislature is the determining factor. In other words it should be asked whether the legislature would have enacted at all that which survive without the part found ultra virus.
The rule of severability applies as much clause (2) as to Clause (1) of Art 13
Jia Lal v/s Delhi Administration AIR 1962
The appellant was prosecuted for an office u/s 19 (f) of the Arm Act 1878. In fact, section 29 of this Act provides that in certain area in which the petitioner did not obtain any license in which the petitioner was residing, it was not necessary to obtain the said license for possession fire arm. Section 29 was challenged as ultra virus and unconstitutional as offending Art 14 and also section 19(f) of the Arms Act 1878 on the ground that two sections were not severable, on the question of severability the SC held that the section 29 of the Arms Act 1878 was ultra virus.